DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 and 27-31, 33-36 are pending.
Claims 18-26 and 32 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-17, 27-29 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George (US 2011/0232206) in view of Cook (US 2005/0252103) and Hagel (US 2002/0059772).
Re claim 1, George discloses a window well (1), comprising:
the window well (one element 2); and
a modular window well insert (another element 2) which mates with (Fig. 2-3) the window well (one element 2),
wherein the modular window well insert (another element 2) comprises:
a body (body of 2) comprising a rib (5) that correspond to (Fig. 1-2; “correspond” meaning to “closely match” per Merriam-Webster) a rib (5) of the window well (one element 2), and
a flange (36) having a recessed section (Fig. 3: 19/20), the recessed section (19/20) having a depth relative to the flange (16); and
wherein replacing the damaged portion (as modified below) includes sliding (Fig. 2, no direction being claimed) the recessed section (19/20) behind a portion (behind 19, as no point of reference for behind is claimed) of the window well (one element 2) without substantially deforming either the window well or the modular window well insert (Fig. 1-3), and fastening (18; [0022] one the right side of Col 2) the modular window well insert (another element 2) to the window well (one element 2),
but fails to disclose the rib of the modular window well insert and the modular window well as a plurality of ribs, wherein the modular window well insert comprises a top lip, and wherein a wall thickness of the top lip is greater than a wall thickness of the main body of the module window well insert, and a method of repairing, removing a damaged portion, replacing the damaged portion with a modular insert.
However, Cook discloses the rib (28) of the modular window well insert (10) and the modular window well (George: 2; Cook: 70) as a plurality of ribs (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the window well of George with the rib of the modular window well insert and the modular window well as a plurality of ribs as disclosed by Cook in order to increase strength and rigidity, stiffness, and tensile strength, without adding weight, as is the normal and logical purpose of use of a plurality of ribs.
In addition, Cook discloses wherein the modular window well insert (10) comprises a top lip (30/32), and wherein a wall thickness (of 30/32) of the top lip (30/32) is greater than (Fig. 3) a wall thickness (at 28) of the main body (proximate 28) of the module window well insert (10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the window well of George wherein the modular window well insert comprises a top lip, and wherein a wall thickness of the top lip is greater than a wall thickness of the main body of the module window well insert as disclosed by Cook in order to provide a cap on the modular window well insert which could simulate the appearance of a capstone ([0027]) while maintaining the cap in shape ([0031]).
In addition, Hagel discloses a method of repairing ([0002]; see also [0007] disclosing use with window frames), removing ([0014]) a damaged portion (12, 14), replacing ([0016]) the damaged portion (12, 14) with a modular insert (32, 34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the window well of George with a method of repairing, removing a damaged portion, replacing the damaged portion with a modular insert as disclosed by Hagel in order to extend the life of the window well, without needing to replace the entirety thereof. Moreover, it is noted that repairing via replacement of individual components to extend the lifespan thereof is extremely common in the general art, as well as across related arts.
Re claim 2, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, Hagel discloses wherein the damaged portion (12, 14) is removed from a bottom (bottom of 10 of the window well (10, as modified), and the modular window well insert (32, 34) is attached to the bottom (bottom of 10) of the window well (10, as modified).
Moreover, it is noted that although (per the above), with respect to George, inasmuch as one element 2 is directed to the window well and another element 2 is directed to the modular insert, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of George wherein the damaged portion is removed from a bottom of the window well, and the modular window well insert is attached to the bottom of the window well in order to repair the bottom of the window well and extend the life thereof. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 3, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, Hagel discloses wherein the damaged portion (12, as modified by George) is removed from a top (top of 14) of the window well (14), and the modular window well insert (12) is attached to the top (top of 14) of the window well (14).
Moreover, it is noted that although (per the above), with respect to Hagel, inasmuch as 12/14 is directed to the damaged portion and 32/34 is directed to the modular insert, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of George as modified wherein the damaged portion is removed from a top of the window well, and the modular window well insert is attached to the top of the window well in order to repair the top of the window well and extend the life thereof. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 4, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, Hagel discloses wherein the damaged portion (12, 14) of the window well (10; George: one element 2) is removed and replaced with ([0014], [0016]) the modular window well insert (32, 34; George: another element 2) while the window well (10; George: one element 2) remains attached to (Fig. 2-3) a home or other structure (Fig. 3; the remainder of 10 remains attached to the building/structure).
Re claim 5, George as modified discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the modular window well insert (another element 2) and the window well (one element 2) have one or more attachment holes (18), and wherein the one or more attachment holes (18) of the window well insert (another element 2) align with (Fig. 2-3) one or more attachment holes (18) of the window wells (one element 2) when the modular window well insert (another element 2) is mated to (Fig. 2-3) the window well (one element 2).
Re claim 11, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the recessed section (19/20) of the modular window well insert (another element 2) is at a top (Fig. 3) of the modular window well insert (another element 2).
Re claim 12, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the recessed section (19/20) has a height within a range of about 10 cm to about 25 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George wherein the recessed section has a height within a range of about 10 cm to about 25 cm in order to provide sufficient overlap with an adjacent unit in order to fit bolts without damaging the remainder of the recessed section. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 13, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modular window well insert (another element 2) comprises one or more tabs (25) and one or more slots (24) that facilitate mating with ([0022]) the window well (one element 2) that also has one or more tabs (25) and one or more slots (24).
Re claim 14, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a body of the modular window well insert has a varying wall thickness.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George wherein a body of the modular window well insert has a varying wall thickness in order to reduce material use, and thus, costs, where strength is not necessarily as important along the body. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 15, George as modified discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the body (of 2) comprises of a plurality of ribs (Cook : 28, as modified) and wall surface portions (of 2), but fails to disclose wherein the variable wall thickness of the body is thicker at the ribs than the wall surface portions, the body of the modular window well insert having fewer ribs than the window well.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George wherein the variable wall thickness of the body is thicker at the ribs than the wall surface portion in order to reduce material use at the wall surface portions, and thus, costs, where strength is not necessarily as important along the body. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George with the body of the modular window well insert having fewer ribs than the window well in order to reduce material by making the insert smaller, and thus, reduce costs. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 16, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the recessed section of the modular window well insert is on a bottom of the modular window well insert, which mates to a top section of the window well.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of George wherein the recessed section of the modular window well insert is on a bottom of the modular window well insert, which mates to a top section of the window well in order to connect to the window well on the other end thereof. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 17, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modular window well insert (another element 2) comprises two recessed sections (19/20; [0021] disclosing these features on “each” element 16), one recessed section (19/20) being on a top (Fig. 3) of the modular window well insert (another element 2), but fails to disclose the other recessed section being on a bottom of the modular window well insert.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of George wherein the recessed section of the modular window well insert is on a bottom of the modular window well insert, which mates to a top section of the window well in order to connect to the window well on the other end thereof. It has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 27, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the modular window well insert is composed of (i) a fiber reinforced plastic, (ii) steel, (iii) aluminum, or (iv) another metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of George wherein the modular window well insert is composed of (i) a fiber reinforced plastic, (ii) steel, (iii) aluminum, or (iv) another metal in order utilize a durable, strong, easy to manufacture, readily available material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331
Re claim 28, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modular window well insert (another element 2) and the window well (one element 2) have one or more attachment holes (18), and wherein the one or more attachment holes (18) of the window well insert (another element 2) align with (Fig. 2-3) one or more attachment holes (18) of the window wells (one element 2) when the modular window well insert (another element 2) is mated to (Fig. 3) the window well (one element 2).
Re claim 29, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a height of the modular window well insert ranges from about 15 cm to about 150 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George wherein a height of the modular window well insert ranges from about 15 cm to about 150 cm in order to provide sufficient sizing to form a rigid, durable high enough, window well. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 34, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the flange (16) is positioned at an end (Fig. 3) of the body (of 2), wherein the flange (16) extends along the end (of 2) of the body (2) in a direction perpendicular (vertically and/or into/out of the thickness direction) to the plurality of ribs (one side of 5).
Re claim 35, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the recessed section (19/20) is positioned at an end (Fig. 3) of the flange (16).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George (US 2011/0232206) in view of Cook (US 2005/0252103), Hagel (US 2002/0059772) and Kim et al (“Kim”) (US 2003/0097802).
Re claim 6, George as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the modular window well insert is composed of a fiber reinforced plastic.
However, Kim discloses wherein the modular window well insert (George: one element 2) is composed of a fiber reinforced plastic (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George wherein the modular window well insert is composed of a fiber reinforced plastic (as suggested as a known material in the use of the window well field per Kim) in order to provide energy efficiency, high durability and low maintenance, as all are well-known benefits of fiber reinforced plastics. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 7, George as modified discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein at least some fibers within the fiber reinforced plastic have a length of greater than 20 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George wherein at least some fibers within the fiber reinforced plastic have a length of greater than 20 mm (as suggested material of fiber reinforced plastic per Kim) in order to provide energy efficiency, high durability and low maintenance, as all are well-known benefits of fiber reinforced plastics. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 8, George as modified discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein at least some fibers within the fiber reinforced plastic have a length of greater than 40 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George wherein at least some fibers within the fiber reinforced plastic have a length of greater than 40 mm (as suggested material of fiber reinforced plastic per Kim) in order to provide energy efficiency, high durability and low maintenance, as all are well-known benefits of fiber reinforced plastics. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claims 9, George as modified discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a thermoplastic.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a thermoplastic (as per Kim, disclosing injection molded plastic) in order to allow for simple molding into desired shapes/sizes. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claims 10, George as modified discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a thermoset plastic.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of George wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a thermoset plastic (as per Kim, disclosing injection molded plastic) in order to allow for simple molding into desired shapes/sizes. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 31, 33 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 30 and 36 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 30, the prior art of record fails to teach the totality of the invention, including, in combination with the additionally claimed elements, any of the at least two ribs of the insert mate with any of the at least two ribs of the window well. During the 8/13/26 Interview, it was discussed that the intention of this language is that any 2 ribs selected from the insert can mate with any two selected ribs of the plurality of ribs of the window well. In other ribs, 2 ribs from the insert are capable of mating with all (though, 2 at a time) ribs of the window well. This language has been interpreted consistent with that description.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 (for the reasons stated in the previous rejection) is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the features from allowable claim 32. Applicant states that a typographical error has been corrected as amended changing the top groove with the top lip. However, this amendment changes the scope of the claim as allowed. Although Cook (newly cited) does not claim a top groove in the manner claimed, it does appear to disclose a top lip in the manner claimed. In other words, the scope of claim 1, including the features of claim 32, as amended to the top lip instead of the top groove, are disclosed by the combination outlined in the above.
Applicant’s argument concerning claim 33 are addressed in view of the indication of allowability above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights